Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Features · Wikileaks
. . . .


Anne Stanton - December 27th, 2010
WikiLeaks: ‘It’s too much power for one person,’ says retired diplomat
Last week, the Express reprinted a Michael Moore editorial on
WikiLeaks, “Leaks Don’t Kill People, Secrets Do.” Here is another
viewpoint from Jack Segal, a retired State Department diplomat.

By Anne Stanton

Most Americans who have heard reports of WikiLeaks believe the release
of thousands of secret State Department communications will do more
harm to this country than good, according to a Pew Research Center
survey released on December 10.
Jack Segal, a retired State Department diplomat now living in Traverse
City, happens to agree with them. But don’t be mistaken. Segal is a
staunch First Amendment advocate and is writing an insider book about
Afghanistan diplomacy and why we need to end our costly mission there
(See his accompanying essay).
Segal believes that with free speech comes responsibility, such as
checking out whether something happens to be true or putting a news
event into context. The New York Times, which is publishing a series
of news articles based on the Wikileaks documents, is doing just that.
One NYT article for example, reported on how the U.S. in 2007 tried to
pressure Germany from issuing arrest warrants for 13 CIA officers for
allegedly kidnapping an innocent German man and then torturing him in
Afghanistan before realizing they had the wrong guy. A diplomatic
cable, quoted in the December 9, 2010 article, delivered a veiled
threat that Germany must weigh its relationship with the United States
as it proceeds with the investigation.
That kind of journalism contrasts to “dumping” 251,287 documents and
hoping that the value of “transparency” trumps any downsides.  For
example, the first two leaks—The Iraq War Logs and The Afghan War
Diaries—contained names of confidential sources living in Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and Iraq, who may have
been killed for talking to Americans, Segal said.
“If you were working for one of the power brokers in Afghanistan and
it was discovered you talked to someone and you were named  in a
cable, you might end up dead. That’s very dangerous, and that’s a huge
irresponsibility. They could have scratched out the names, but it
would have taken a lot of work. It was simply laziness on their part.
Who wants to take the time and read all that stuff? It was easier to
dump it out there. But it means people will be killed, or already have
been killed. We don’t know.”
The first two batches of releases included raw communications from
junior level personnel, some of it reliable, much of it not. “This was
un-assessed intelligence, bits and pieces from Afghanistan. They were
not embassy cables—mostly they were raw defense intelligence agency
reports. These always carry a written caution—that the contents have
not been assessed at the proper level and might be completely wrong.
They are sometimes written by a young officer, for example,who does
not understand all the nuances of what’s happening. You read them at
your peril. When I worked at the White House, I never read them. They
were too raw and often wrong.”
Yet the release of this intelligence has raised an important question:
Are they vital for protecting national security, such as the 9/11
terrorist attack? Segal said it’s dubious.
“There are just thousands and thousands of reports like these. The
Pentagon will be blown up tomorrow, there’s a bomb under the White
House, dirty nukes in St. Louis. This is raw intelligence, and you
need to analyze the source—could this person be in a position to know
what he or she is claiming to know? You have to sort it out from all
the other events that never happened. A source wants to be paid again
for information, and some will tell you anything to get paid—if they
heard a rumor or they just made it up. They may do all sorts of things
to stay on your list of sources.
Diplomats at the 190 different missions throughout the world shift
through the raw material, analyze it and write up synopses in
diplomatic cables. These hundreds of thousands of cables comprise the
latest WikiLeaks release. And the fact they are synthesized by senior
personnel with a high level of reliability makes their release even
more significant. Bottom line, the country’s most valuable sources
could be potentially driven away, said Segal, who added that his State
Department colleagues say this is exactly what’s happening.
“With this WikiLeaks release, the sources have been warned. They now
understand that if they talk to you, their name will show up in
public. No longer will we be able to put the names of sources in the
cables; they’ll have to be sent separately.”
More energy and resources must be spent on building new sources, and
that takes time, Segal said.
“It’s hard work. I’ve done it. You’ve got to socialize with people and
try to loosen them up enough to talk about their work. It will hurt us
as a nation, our allies, because we exchange information with our
allies, we have intelligence exchanges. We have a network, and that’s
how we find all the terrorist groups. We talk to each other every day
on the Intelnet, a network of intelligence agencies, and we’re
constantly sharing information.”
Julius Assange did not release the most sensitive and secretive
cables, known as “nodis” or no distribution. If you need an example of
a nodis, go to the back of Bob Woodward’s book, “Obama’s War”. For a
particularly compelling nodis, Google “nodis + Ambassador Eikenberry +
“That sort of information was meant only for the eyes of the highest
government officials – the Secretaries of State and Defense and the
President.  But someone decided to leak it to the media and doing so
revealed a split within our leadership. That information is useful to
our enemies. I recognize the argument for transparency but there also
has to be a channel for private discussion,” Segal said.
If there is a message there for our government, it’s to remind those
at the highest level that discussions on important issues like
Afghanistan must take place in public. Before we ever go to war,
Congress should be made to vote on a Declaration of War, which would
force debate and transparency, he said.
“Our government could improve what it’s doing by making internal
debates more open. Now it’s more like, ‘We did the review and here’s
the conclusion.’ Like pulling a rabbit out of the hat rather than a
true public dialogue of here are the options we are being hit with.
The reason there’s so much interest in WikiLeaks is that we’re not
doing enough of that. We didn’t hear the debate over the options on
the defense budget, for example. It was just decided. Same thing with
“But it shouldn’t be Julian Assange deciding for everybody in the
world what gets out there. It’s too much power for one person, and I
hope he’s going to run out of material. But I don’t know.”

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5